click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
. from 1980 until this year when a lame duck session followed a presidential election, every single judicial nominee reported with bipartisan judicial committee support has been confirmed. that's whether it was a republican or democratic president or republican-controlled or democratic-controlled senate. according to the nonpartisan congressional research service, no consensus nominee reported prior to the august recess has ever been denied a vote before now. somehow this president is treated differently than all the other presidents before it. it had been here with president ford, president carter, president reagan, first president bush, president clinton, second president bush, now president obama. none of those other presidents were treated in the way this president is treated. it's something senate democrats have never done in a lame duck session, whether after a presidential or midterm election. in fact, the senate democrats allowed votes on 20 of president george w. bush's judicial nominees, including three circuit court nominees in the lame duck session after the election in
believe that's the message of this election, that people want us to sit down and be reasonable and work together. they also sent a message through the reelection of our president, who campaigned, saying that the wealthiest among us should be part of solving the problem, can afford to pay a little bit more in order to make sure we're not asking middle-class families to have the entire burden of resolving the deficit in our country. the president won, the public said common sense says everybody ought to be participating, not just middle-class families and senior citizens who have been hit the hardest in the recession. everything has happened in the last decade. they have been hit the hardest on, carried the brunt of it. now we're saying, you know what? everybody ought to be in this as americans. we all benefit from this great country, the blessings of this country, and everybody ought to be a part of the solution. i believe it was a very strong message. i believe it was a very strong message to say that people want us to work together. but i also know in looking at the proposal that the s
, despite the fear, it's not going to change one election here in the senate. it's not going to decide one of the primaries that i fear are distorting the politics of our country. but you know what, mr. president? it will decide whether some people live or die in another country, where there is no accountability and only united states values and standards are the difference to the prospects of someone with a disability. in some countries, children are disposed of, killed because they have a disability. our treaty can actually help prevent that. in some countries, children do not get to go to school and certainly have no prospects of a future simply because they are born with a disability. this treaty will help offer hope where there is none. the united states could actually sit at the table and make the difference for people with disabilities because we're willing to push our values and hold other nations accountable to meet our standards, the gold standard of the americans with disabilities act. mr. president, i'd ask just for another three minutes, please. the presiding officer: without
that president was in cambodia right after the election. he was in burma. secretary clinton moved widely throughout the region as does secretary panetta. and the amount of activities that i do and my forces do have been a prompt jump in what we've done in the past, and we're looking for opportunities to do more exercise. we're doing more of those things already. i think it's visible to our allies. i think it's visible to our partners. not to be invisible to the region. we also want to jump, where's the next summary our aircraft carrier, that's always the sake of. and we will, over time as you heard secretary panetta said, we will rebalance our navy towards the pacific, and i party mentioned in my opening remarks, we are rapidly moving our most capable assets in the region because of some of the ballistic missile defense will be facing of those types of things. so i think it's not about one thing. it's about a holistic approach, and what if you on the military side is only one aspect of a. it's got to be tied to what's happening in the economic side in what's happening in the diplomatic s
relationship, i don't think that that kind of thing -- >> what matters is japan does have election on the summer 16th. are they worried about china trying to put together a leader democracy in the region including india because that was his strategy that if you put together things, much more like your when you think, i know you can't in your position talk one way or another about prime minister but this notion about a strategic -- is japan really need to invest in structures that balance -- are you worried that given your experience you have to balance china much more vigorously than you did in the past? >> yes. most frequently you ask question for japanese people is whether we regard china as a threat or a chance for an hour and should is would like to see china development as a chance rather than threat. >> what you think will really happen? >> there is a assumption that china continues to be kind of international stakeholder, stakeholder, international community. international order and they respect the communication with the other countries. on the assumption i think we can wel
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5